Moore v. State
18 A.3d 981
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Frederick County incidents (Aug–Oct 2006) involved counterfeit currency and forged instruments; 75-count information reduced to 38 counts for trial; jury convicted on 37 counts across multiple locations and transactions.
- Counts included separate convictions for possessing counterfeit currency and issuing counterfeit currency arising from the same bills; some counts also involved theft or attempted theft.
- The trial court imposed a complex sentencing scheme with many concurrent and consecutive terms, including some counts with no sentence.
- Moore testified she did not recall some transactions and claimed she did not know the bills were counterfeit; the State offered circumstantial and documentary evidence linking her to multiple counterfeit bills.
- On appeal, the Court vacated several counts and sentences (notably Counts 6, 7, 32, 33, 37) and vacated only some sentences on Counts 3, 29, 66, 69, while affirming others; the case was remanded for an amended commitment.
- The issues addressed include multiplicity under CL 8-604.1, the unit of prosecution, merger for double jeopardy, sufficiency of evidence for certain counts, and a remand for re-sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiplicity of possessing vs issuing counterfeit currency | Moore argues CL 8-604.1 creates a single offense. | State contends possessing and issuing are distinct offenses; not multiplicitous. | Two distinct offenses exist; counts 3/4 and related counts not multiplicious; some counts vacated per Leftenant guidance. |
| Unit of Prosecution for counterfeit currency offenses | Unit should be serial numbers/denomination(s) rather than transaction. | Language ambiguous; unit could be transaction; lenity applies for single sentence per transaction. | Unit of prosecution is the transaction, not individual bills; counts limited to one sentence per transaction; duplicative counts vacated. |
| Merger of possessing/currency into issuing currency and into theft/uttering | Possession and issuance merge into one offense; possible merger into theft/uttering. | Merger analyses depend on elements; cannot automatically merge all related counts. | Merger resolved by context: possession vs issuance remain distinct for sentencing; issuing and uttering do not merge into theft for all counts; some uttering counts merged into attempted theft under lenity. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 10–12, 13–15, 35, 42 | Cashiers could not identify Moore; evidence insufficient. | Serial-number match and circumstantial evidence support conviction. | Sufficient evidence under standard of review; jury could rationally convict on these counts. |
| Remand for re-sentencing | Multiplicitous counts inflated potential penalties; remand needed. | Sentence within statutory limits and crafted with discretion. | Remand for re-sentencing appropriate to reflect vacated counts; overall incarceration period unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biggus v. State, 323 Md. 339 (1991) (statutory structure distinguishes two offenses in One offense with alternative means; supports separate offenses here)
- Lancaster v. State, 332 Md. 385 (1993) (required evidence test governs merger; lesser offense conviction survives but sentencing can merge)
- Leftenant, United States v., 341 F.3d 338 (2003) (federal Leftenant approach to unit of prosecution for counterfeit currency—transaction-based; vacate multiple counts accordingly)
- Rudder v. State, 181 Md.App. 426 (2008) (unit of prosecution concept applied to theft statute; aggregation of single episode)
- Montrail v. State, 325 Md. 527 (1992) (merger/fundamental fairness principles in double jeopardy context)